Doctor admits euthanizing patients during Katrina

Originally posted by nixie_nox
And I am going to add that it is pretty pathetic that we can't have a discussion about anything without the anti-obama squad making a mockery
of it.anything
Seriously, we know your agenda, your not adding anything useful, your spewing your own emotions to make you feel better. Quit ruining what can
otherwise be a decent discussion.

Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president - in the history of the USA.

I recall reading right after Katrina, about a doctor who euthanised. The situation at the hospital was irreversible. No electircity, hence, no life
support, or other electronic equipment. They could not evacuate the patients. As opposed to letting these folks drown to death or die any other
miserable death, the doctor did what he felt he had to do.

I believe that if someone is ready to perish, and the circumstances are such that there is no chance for recovery, they are in a coma, then it is
perfectly scriptural to assist them in a dignified death. This is not murder, nor killing. In Proverbs 31:6 it states to give "strong drink" to
those who are near death, and wine to those who are suffering from the loss. "Strong drink" today is usually morphine or somthing similar.

If you read the entire report, which it appears many have not, then it is clear that it is not one doctor at all but a whole swathe of people who
committed these murders. When you read that some of these patients were perfectly comfortable and were then killed, there is no justification
whatsoever for what happened. To hold a towel over someone’s face because they just won’t die…is that ok? To talk of fear of black people
(“animals”) storming the hospital and raping and dismembering, when nothing of the sort was happening….is that right? To talk of wanting to kill
even more but “We didn’t do it because we had too many witnesses”…is that right?

She added: “But even if it had been euthanasia, it’s not something we don’t really do every day — it just goes under a different
name.’’

To talk of people on another independently financed floor of the hospital, (in normal times) who were being treated in order to eventually go home
as;

‘‘We spend too much on these turkeys,’’ he said some would say. ‘‘We ought to let them go.’’

That shows complete and utter contempt for human life and individuality. People are not seen as people, but as an inconvenience.
So now we have the main murderer lecturing about how to cover disasters…is that ok?

The debate among medical professionals about how to handle disasters is intensifying, with Pou and her version of the Memorial narrative often at the
center. At a conference for hospital executives and state disaster planners a few months ago in Chicago, she did not mention that she injected
patients, saying that helicopters arrived in the afternoon of Thursday, Sept. 1, and ‘‘we were able to evacuate the rest.’’

To then spend your days lecturing and fighting to get bills passed that offers complete immunity from prosecution, after having deliberately murdered
so many people is sick beyond belief.

This is actually what you will have to look forward to officially in this new sick world. They have told you directly, but nobody wishes to hear. The
world is utterly sick and in the hands of brutal, greedy evil men…and some sick women. There is absolutely no respect for human life being shown by
a huge swathe of people across the world.

What would I do to these people who needlessly and callously ended lives. I would lock them up, give them an injection every single week…and have
them not knowing which injection and when will be the one that makes them ‘comfortable’.

Have you seen Children of Chernobyl? There is this scene in the documentary where the doctor is speaking very harshly and coldly with the parents,
then he turns the corner and is clearly distraught and emotional.

Perhaps, it was a "brave front"? Maybe he has regrets but has to tell himself daily that he did the right thing?

Honestly, I believe that humans have outgrown their environment to the point where we can only be depressed, stressed, or angry.

The ancients had a difficult life, no doubt, but they didn't have the stress of driving in rush hour traffic, of paying bills, of being "available"
at all times. They also didn't have to answer life and death questions with so many "what ifs"? Parents would look at babies for their viability
and make a decision. It was part of daily life. Soldiers would look at each other's wounds and make a decision. Death and life were brothers. The
afterworld to the ancients was better than this place so the guilt of taking a life was removed.

Terry Schiavo's mother would have grieved when her daughter died from the original seizure. She would have mourned her and lived the rest of her
life knowing her daughter was in peace. Instead she lived in limbo, hoping she would "wake up" and talk to her again, that the flickering eye
movements meant something. What a terrible burden for a mother to bear.

I'm not arguing against life support. I would certainly put my child on it because I could never ever let go of my child. It's terrible to say but
I would hold out hope to the end that she would come back to me, somehow.

One hundred years ago I wouldn't have to make this decision.

I hate the complexity of modern life. I wish there was some new planet to go to without technology. *sighs*

Most people that stayed chose to stay. Many felt that the hurricane wouldn't be that bad. Many stayed behind to take care of their communities. This
was so prevalent that they are trying to redo the warning structure:

A second survey in the study contrasted the attitudes of leavers and stayers. As expected (and consistent with the different models of human
agency), leavers were much more likely to emphasize choice, independence and to talk about being focused on the future and concerned about the risks
of staying. Stayers were much more likely to emphasize community, faith, inner strength and tended to underestimate the risks. In short, while leavers
saw the risks and wanted to get the heck out, stayers turned to the limited resources they had to do their best to weather the storm. For them, agency
was handling what life gave them.

One of the things we heard from many of the survivors was that they didn't hear too many warnings or didn't think the warnings were that big of a
deal," Stephens said. "If you distribute messages through sources that people trust, it makes those messages more effective."

For example, Stephens suggested that it might be more effective to disseminate messages through trusted institutions like churches or other community
groups, rather than the mainstream media.

Many of the people who stayed behind were seniors. Many who lived through Camille. Camille was a far worse storm then Katrina. But because of coastal
and wetland erosion, let Katrina cause more disaster. So since they had less trouble with Camille, they didn't think Katrina would be that bad.

After Katrina, many hurricane prone areas were surveyed and people were asked if they would evacuate or stay. While being shone pictures of the
horrific Katrina damage. Almost the same amount of people said they would stay to weather their homes. It is just human instinct to stay and protect
your belongings.

I understand why this bothers people so much. You see it as, the elderly and diabled were seen as lesser people and the doctors gave them fatal
medications.

And there is a worry that in times of crisis, that those who are less able will be put out to pasture in these events.

I completely see where you are coming from.

No one is saying, that these people were worth less. That they are just afterthoughts and that we propose that people who can't get themselves out
should just be sacrificed.

But you also have to see too, doctors handled it how doctors handle it. The doctors themselves were not escape artists. They may have had no idea how
to get themselves out. Many of them were frantic about their familes. They didn't know where to go or what to do. So what exactly were they supposed
to do with a patient, in a bed, that needed mass amounts of equipment?

I love seniors. I think seniors are an ignored, under cherished population of our country.

But I would fully expect any doctor, person, or other, to save a child before a senior.

Would you expect the doctors to sacrifice themselves, if they have young families to save a person who really only has a short time to live?
Just food for thought.

The OP's main issue was the manner in which it was done, that the Dr apparently showed no compassion. Well, unless you know this Dr personally you
cannot tell whether or not he feels remorse or acted compassionately in his own mind at the time. Isolated quotes and/or media interviews can project
very little of the truth and a lot of guesswork and presumption.

The way I see it, is if the doctor wasn't being compassionate, they wouldn't of done anything at all. They would of just left. Taking the time to
make the person more comfortable on their way out is more compassionate to me.

They rather this be a thread about calling for this doctor to be executed for treating people like dirt.

As shown in the post above this one.

Now hold on here. If you read that post then you read mine too. So therefore you fully understand the situation. The Government let this tragedy get o
the point of not enough resources when they could have saved those people if they had not turned all help away then on top of that barely lift a
finger to help for nearly a week.

I have pasted my post link as a reply below. Another poster not for below that post also mentioned this same thing in they're experience too.

The interviews and documents cast the story of Pou and her colleagues in a new light. It is now evident that more medical professionals were
involved in the decision to inject patients — and far more patients were injected — than was previously understood. When the names on toxicology
reports and autopsies are matched with recollections and documentation from the days after Katrina, it appears that at least 17 patients were injected
with morphine or the sedative midazolam, or both, after a long-awaited rescue effort was at last emptying the hospital. A number of these patients
were extremely ill and might not have survived the evacuation. Several were almost certainly not near death when they were injected, according to
medical professionals who treated them at Memorial and an internist’s review of their charts and autopsies that was commissioned by investigators
but never made public.

Doesn't matter what the reason behind his taking on euthanasia. Bottom line, he had not right to do that. That goes against the Hippocratic oath
and he should have his license revoked.
Our government has gone to H*** and unfortunately I don't think it will be back.

The way I see it, is if the doctor wasn't being compassionate, they wouldn't of done anything at all. They would of just left. Taking the time to
make the person more comfortable on their way out is more compassionate to me.

Me too.

If I'd had an elderly relative in this hospital that was terminal or showed little signs of recovering - - - I would thank this doctor for putting
his entire career on the line to not let them suffer.

Some people are so hung up on "Right Idealism" - - they are incapable of independent thinking - - applied to extreme circumstance.

And to judge anyone on their emotional state and intent from what you read on the internet is irresponsible in itself.

"Words on a page have no inflection" - - - it is irresponsible to add such.

If I'd had an elderly relative in this hospital that was terminal or showed little signs of recovering - - - I would thank this doctor for putting
his entire career on the line to not let them suffer.

Some people are so hung up on "Right Idealism" - - they are incapable of independent thinking - - applied to extreme circumstance.

And to judge anyone on their emotional state and intent from what you read on the internet is irresponsible in itself.

"Words on a page have no inflection" - - - it is irresponsible to add such.

Let's all of us cease writing and making opinions on anything then, as all we are basing it on is news stories or articles and we were not there. Not
sure that argument holds much weight. I think if you read that entire article then intent becomes clearer. Even when one brave intern continued to
call those doctors out on killing people, he was dismissed as being unrealistic. The male doctor that the OP was about, was scared. He then made awful
decisions from his own inadequacy, he was also unfit to even climb the stairs, so maybe he should have volunteered to be made 'comfortable'. He also
admitted that he only stopped killing a very large man who was perfectly ok, and others like him as 'there were too many witnesses', a man who was
eventually rescued. Does that sound like compassion? Because to me that sounds like a consideration of premeditated murder. At the very least he
should never again be near any patients and should be struck off.
The Puo woman, who instigated the deaths of patients who were perfectly fine and comfortable, should be jailed for a very long time.
The people who held
a towel over a man's face because he just would not die, should perhaps suffer the same fate so they at least know what it feels like. To assume that
patients even if seemingly unconscious do not know what is going on around them has been proved wrong many times. So imagine the fear of knowing that
you are being purposefully killed.
To those talking about saving kids first, or lack of supplies...read the article, read the racism, read the contempt for the elderly. Of course, none
of it may be true, but as we are all basing our opinions on said article, and some without never having read it, then that is all we have to go on.
They were not just people who were dying, they were people who would have recovered. It turned into a killing spree.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.